ford ecoboost

Way to compare a ½ ton versus a ¼ ton truck there.

 

yeah, its for real man!

 

Those numbers are pretty impressive. Will be interesting to see how it holds up. 420 ft/lb torque at 2500 would be nice. Twin turbo but its also direct injection thats helping these things produce the guts at low rpm no?

That said I don't think its time to jump on the bandwagon yet. Im sure the toyota redesign will have some similar fuel econ and power increases. And we can all hold our breath for the 4cyl turbo diesel thats haunting our dreams!

 

He probably could compare the 3.7 to the 4.0 in the Tundra, if you'd prefer? I think he makes his point quite well - Ford has done their homework with these new engines, and Toyota will need to bring their A game for their next truck V6. It's just not too terribly impressive anymore.

EDIT- And I think an F-150 with a 3.7 is more of a competitor with a Tacoma with a 4.0 than you might think, with the increase in size in the Tacoma and the fact that Ford doesn't have a midsize truck anymore.

 

wow thats impressive.

 

I would hope not...it's 6 years old. You can R/D, spec, design, troubleshoot, and put into production an entire engine series in that timeframe...which is exactly what Ford's done.

This would be like comparing the 4.0L to the 3.4L in the same truck...of course it's going to be lopsided...people need to start thinking clearly.

 

ive been following this motor as well as the 4.4 diesel that was supposed to come out since about 07, theyve left enough play in the motor to achieve 400 hp and just about 500 ft lbs. theres also another one theyre working on another for the SD's its a 5.0 ecoboost

 

I guess we need to stop calling these 1/2 ton trucks now...Hahaha.

I'm pretty sure and an F-350, Ram 3500, etc. has a payload of like 2.5 tons or something like that...yet we still call them 1 ton trucks.

 

they're pretty damn expensive though $55 000CDN with just some minor options and its $1000 over the standard FX4 package.

 

1k usd more then the 5.0 fx4

 

well our dollars are pretty well even but we add 10% tax

 

Obviously they are going to be differences, but i think that after 50 or so years of doing it, the engineers have found out how to get extremely good at simulating miles. Probably much much better than you give them credit for.

Tell that to diesel owners. If it's well engineered and designed to handle the boost, longevity and reliability are non-issues.

They actually go through temperature extremes during their simulated miles, much hotter and colder than you'd ever see in real life. I would assume the baja 1000 is probably a little dusty as well.

That's because most companies that have done it in the past are filled with idiots like VW who fuck up everything they touch. They make thinks over complicated, then cheap out on engineering and materials needed to make that overcomplicated system work properly.

I'm not saying that the ecoboost systems are going to for sure be awesome, but it definitely sounds like the odds are in it's favor.

 

I'm just going to let that rebut all your rebuttals.

I want it proven. Until it is, I remain a skeptic.

 

I don't agree with his views about VW. But I would LOVE to see your rebuttal towards his comment about boosted diesel engines.

 

50 will have ecoboost...

 

What's your point? The payload capacity only differs by about 300 pounds.

If the price, fuel economy, and payload are all close...the trucks are going to be cross-shopped by truck buyers. How many times do you see someone here who came from and F150, or sells their Tacoma to buy an F150?

Any person shopping for a truck who would consider a Tacoma would at least be likely to pause and think about a slightly larger truck that has a smaller engine with more horsepower that gets better fuel economy.

 

Huh? Look at what is offered for 2011. If you're shopping for a new truck, how can you think any more clearly than to look at what the manufacturers are currently offering?

The best 'improvement' we have seen imagined for the redesigned (2008/2009/2010/2011/2012?) Tacoma is the new dual-VVTi engine...which I included in my comparison.

My point: Toyota had better have something better than just the dual-VVTi 4.0 1GR-FE ready to go, because nothing they have on the table in 2011 seems to be impressive compared to what Ford is offering.

I just don't think that Toyota can do a whole lot with "Come buy a smaller truck with a smaller engine that makes less power but gets worse gas mileage."

 

Diesels are fundamentally different and designed for high compression and stress from the get-go. They're a proven commodity. FI gas engines aren't and aren't.

 

I agree, this is what I was trying to say. You have to look at current offerings when I say "competitor". Just because one is more advanced than the other doesn't mean they don't compete in the market.

 

From a purchasing standpoint, you're correct. But I don't care about purchasing. I'm not in the market right now. Midsize pickups have been a stupid purchase for most buyers for quite some time now. Unless you go offroad, full size pickups have made more sense from a cost/benefit standpoint for about 5 years now. Buying any midsize is a bad purchase decision unless you're primarily buying the vehicle for off-pavement use.

I'm more interested in things from an engineering standpoint. Comparing Ford motors in their first year of launch to 6 year old Toyota motors is silly.

Anyway:

Toyota has new engines, coming this year. I don't know of they have anything other than Dual VVTi for the Taco....anything more than that really wouldn't be necessary anyway. They're not competing with the F-150.

Again, I'm interested from an apples to apples standpoint. I'm not buying right now, so which is a better purchase is immaterial to me. If there's a sales problem for the Tacoma because Ford manages to grab some of this segment, that's Toyota's problem.